RELI GIOUS

FREEDOM

ON NOVEMBER 19, 1963, the first schema (draft text) on religious freedom was presented to the conciliar Fathers by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Jo the course of two years, five corrected versions of the text appeared in print, each being the work of many revisions within the secreta riat. Three public debates were held in the Aula, dur­ing which some one hundred and twenty speeches were made. Some six hundred written interventions were sent to the secretariat, many of them signed by groups of bishops. More­over, critiques of the successive schemas were made, either orally or in writing, by a considerable number of bishops and theologians who were consulted by the secretariat. Also con­sulted were a number of the observers at the Coancil. Before the final vote was taken, more than two thousand modi (sug­gested corrections) were considered (many of them, of course, were identical).

Thus, the greatest argument on religious freedom in all history happily broke forth in the Church. The debate was full and free and vigorous, if at times confused and emo­tional. Out of it came the sixth and final text, here presented.

The first text had appeared as Chapter V of the Decree on Ecumenism. The second text had appeared as a Declara­tion, but in an appendix to the Decree on Ecumenism. With the third text the Declaration assumed independent status. From the outset, its intention was pastoral, as was the gen­eral intention of the Council in all its utterances. This, how­ever, does not mean that the Declaration contains simply practical advice. Its content is properly doctrinal. In particu­lar, three doctrinal tenets are declared: the ethical doctrine

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 673

of religious freedom as a human right (personal and collec­tive); a political doctrine with regard to the functions and limits of government in matters religious; and the theological doctrine of the freedom of the Church as the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and the socio-political order.

It can hardly be maintained that the Declaration is a mile­stone in human history-moral, political, or intellectual. The principle of religious freedom has long been recognized in constitutional law, to the point where even Marxist-Leninist political ideology is obliged to pay lip-service to it. In all honesty it must be admitted that the Church is late in ac­knowledging the validity of the principle.

In any event, the document is a significant event in the history of the Church. It was, of course, the most controver­sial document of the whole Council, largely because it raised with sharp emphasis the issue that lay continually below the surface of all the conciliar debates-the issue of the develop­ment of doctrine. The notion of development, not the notion of rel igious freedom, was the real sticking-point for many of those who opposed the Declaration even to the end. The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors ( 1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae* ( 1965) still re­mains to be explained by theologians. But the Council for­mally sanctioned the validity of the development itself; and this was a doctrinal event of high importance for theological thought in many other areas.

Moreover, taken in conjunction with the Pastoral Constitu­tion on the Church in the Modern World, the Declaration opens a new era in the relations between the People of God and the People Temporal. A long-standing ambiguity has finally been cleared up. The Church does not deal with the secular order in terms of a double standard-freedom for the Church when Catholics are a minority, privilege for the Church and intolerance for others when Catholics are a ma­jority. The Declaration has opened the way toward new con­fidence in ecumenical relationships, and a new straightfor­wardness in relationships between the Church and the world.

Finally, though the Declaration deals only with the minor issue of religious freedom in the technical secular sense, it

•These arc the opening words, in Latin, of the Declaration on Religious Free­dom. The opening words of conciliar documents may be cited as titles ( usually with each word capitalized, according to the practice for papal encyclicals), but the more common title ls the one that heads the document.-Ed.

674 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

does affirm a principle of wider import-that the dignity of man consists in his responsible use of freedom. Some of the conciliar Fathers-not least those opposed to the Declara­tion-perceived that a certain indivisibility attaches to the notion of freedom. The word and the thing have wrought wonders in the modern world; they have also wrought havoc. The conciliar affirmation of the principle of freedom was narrowly limited-in the text. But the text itself was flung into a pool whose shores are wide as the universal Church. The ripples will run far.

Inevitably, a second great argument will be set afoot­now on the theological meaning of Christian freedom. The children of God, who receive this freedom as a gift from their Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit, assert it with­in the Church as well as within the world, always for the sake of the world and the Church. The issues are many-the dignity of the Christian, the foundations of Christian free­dom, its object or content, its limits and their criterion, the measure of its responsible use, its relation to the· legitimate reaches of authority and to the saving counsels of prudence, the perils that lurk in it, and the forms of corruption to which it is prone. All these issues must be considered in a spirit of sober and informed reflection.

The issue of religious freedom was in itself minor. But Pope Paul VI was looking deep and far when he called the Declaration on Religious Freedom "one of the major texts of the Council."

JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J.

Declaration on Religious Freedom

ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON

AND OF COMMUNITIES

TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM

IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS

PAUL, BISHOP

SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF Goo

TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL

FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY I

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been im­pressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man.1 And the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is also made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of gov­ernment, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.

This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It re­gards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in so­ciety. 2

1. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963) , p. 279; ibid., p. 265; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1944: AAS 37 (1945), p. 14. 2. Vatican II has been characterized by a sense of history, an awareness of the concrete world of fact, and a disposition to see in historical facts certain

676 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

This Vatican Synod takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.

First, 3 this sacred Synod professes its belief that God him-

"signs of the times." Hence the Declaration begins by noting two facts . The first is the recent rise of man's personal consciousness, his sense of self­hood. This increasing awareness of the dignity of the human person marks a progress of civilization. It is the good which has come out of the great evil of totalitarianism, which brutally refuses to acknowledge the reality of man's selfhood. The second fact is the related rise of man's political con­sciousness, his aspiration to live as a free man under a limited government which puts no obstacles to his pursuit of truth and virtue, and, in particular, leaves him unhindered in the free exercise of religion in society. (Happily, the Declaration adopts the classical phrase which the Founding Fathers like­wise adopted when framing the First Amendment in 1791.)

In thus acknowledging certain realities of contemporary life, the Declaration also establishes direct continuity with two basic doctrinal themes of John XXIII in the encyclical "Pacem in Terris": the dignity of the _human person and the consequent necessity of constitutional limits to the powers of government. The language of these opening sentences is, in fact, taken from this great encyclical. 3. The issue of religious freedom arises in the political and social order-in the order of the relationship between the people and government and between man ary.d man. This is the order of human rights, and in it the principle of freedom is paramount. However, man's life is also lived in another order of reality-in the spiritual order of man's relationship to what is objectively true and morally good. This is the order of duty and obligation. In it a man acts freely indeed, but under moral imperatives, which bind in con­science. No man may plead "rights" in the face of the truth or claim "freedom" from the moral law. The distinction between these two orders of reality would be admitted by all men of good sense. The underlying in­tention of these two paragraphs of the Declaration is to make this distinction clear, lest religious freedom be made a pretext for moral anarchy.

However, the distinction is stated in Catholic terms. For the Catholic, the "truth" is not a vague abstraction; it subsists in the Church, is taught by the Church, is believed by the Church. Moreover, this truth about God and about His will for men is not the private possession of a party or sect; it is to be taught to all men, and all nations are to be its disciples. It is not to be thrust by force upon any man; in the order of man's relationship to truth, coercion has no place whatsoever. Consequently, as the Declaration will later make clear, religious freedom is an exigence of religious truth as conceived by the Church.

On the other hand, no man may say of the religious truth which subsists in the Church: "It is no concern of mine." Once given by Christ to His true Church, the true religion remains the one way in which all men are bound to serve God and save themselves. Consequently, religious freedom is not a title to exemption from the obligation to "observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you." In fine, a harmony exists between man's duty of free obedience to the truth and his right to the free exercise of religion in society. The duty does not diminish the right, nor does the right diminish the duty.

This frank profession of Catholic faith, at the outset of the Declaration on Religious Freedom, is in no sense at variance with the ecumenical spirit, any more than it is at variance with full loyalty to the principle of religious

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 677

self has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists .in the catholic and apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the apostles : "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:19-20) . On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

This sacred Synod likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force . The truth cannot impose itself ex­cept by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power. Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore, it leaves untouched traditional Cath­olic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Over and above all this, in taking up the matter of religious freedom this- sacred Synod intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and on the constitutional order of society.4

freedom. Neither the spirit of ecumenism nor the principle of religious freedom requires that the Church refrain from stating publicly what she believes herself to be. The demands of truth are no more opposed to the demands of freedom than they are opposed to the demands of love. 4. In no other conciliar document is it so explicitly stated that the intention of the Council is to "develop" Catholic doctrine. This is significant, since it is an avowal that the tradition of the Church is a tradition of progress in understanding the truth. The basic truth here is the concept of the "citizen" as stated by Pius XII-the man who "feels within himself a consciousness of his own personality, of his duties, and of his rights, joined with a respect for the freedom of others" (Christmas Discourse, 1945). This conception, as the Declaration will say, is deeply rooted both in the Christian tradition and in the tradition of reason. In recent times, it was Leo XIII (in "Rerum Novarum") who first began to move it, as it were, to the forefront of Catholic social teaching. Pius XII continued this development, drawing out the implications of the dignity of man in terms of his duties and rights. He also brought forward the correlative truth, that the primary function of government is to acknowledge, protect, vindicate, and facilitate the exercise of the rights of man. Both of these truths were taken up by John XXIII, chiefly in "Pacem in Terris," in which they are given an almost systematic form of statement.

However, in regard to the right of man to religious freedom, even "Pacem in Terris" is unclear and even ambiguous. What precisely does religious free­dom mean? Does it find place among the inalienable rights of man? These

CHAPTER I

GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. 5 This freedom means that all men

are the questions to which, for the first time, the Church gives an unmis­takably clear and entirely unambiguous answer. The Council brings forth out of the treasury of truth a ·doctrine that is at once new and also in harmony with traditional teaching. 5. The doctrinal substance of the Declaration is stated in this paragraph, which defines what religious freedom is and affirms its status as a human­and therefore civil-right. A right is a moral claim made on others that they either give me something or do something for me or refrain from doing something. Two questions always arise. First, what is the moral claim I make on others, or in other words, what is the object or content of my right? Second, on what grounds do I make this moral claim, or in other words, what is the foundation of my right?

The Declaration first defines religious freedom in terms of its object or content. The moral claim that every man makes on others-on individuals, groups, political or social powers-is that they refrain from bringing coercion to bear on him in all matters religious. This claim is twofold. First, no man 1s to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his personal beliefs; second, no man is to be forcibly restrained from acting in accordance with his beliefs. The affirmation of this latter immunity is the new thing, which is in harmony with the older affirmation of the former immunity. ,

It is to be noted that the word "conscience," found in the Latin text, is used in its generic sense, sanctioned by usage, of "beliefs," "convictions," "persuasions." Hence the unbeliever or atheist makes with equal right this claim to immunity from coercion in religious matters. It is further to be noted that, in assigning a negative content to the right to religious freedom (that is, in making it formally a "freedom from" and not a "freedom for"), the Declaration is in harmony with the sense of the First Amendment to the American Constitution. In guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, the First Amendment guarantees to the American citizen immunity from all coercion in matters religious. Neither the Declaration nor the American Constitution affirms that a man has a right to believe what is false or to do what is wrong. This would be moral nonsense. Neither error nor evil can be the object of a right, only what is true and good. It is, however, true and good that a man should enjoy freedom from coercion in matters religious.

This brings up the second question, concerning the foundation of the right. The reason why every man may claim immunity from coercion in matters religious is precisely his inalienable dignity as a human person. Surely, in matters religious, if anywhere, the free human person is required and entitled to act on his own judgment and to assume personal responsibility for his action or omission. A man's religious decisions, or his decision against religion, are inescapably his own. No one else can make them for

RELIGIOUS l:''REEDOM 679

are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in, a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be re­strained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The Synod further declares that the right to religious free­dom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. G This right of the human per­son to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitu­tional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore priv­ileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral ob­ligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.

However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this im­munity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.

him, or compel him to make this decision or that, or restrain him from putting his decisions into practice, privately or publicly, alone or in com­pany with others. In all these cases, the dignity of man would be diminished because of the denial to him of that inalienable responsibility for his own decisions and actions which is the essential counterpart of his freedom.

It is worth noting that the Declaration does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on "freedom of conscience." Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands, namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do, simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory. Its particular peril is subjectivism-the notion that, in the end, it is my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right or wrong, true or false. 6. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (/963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. /9; Pius XI, encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge," Mar. 14, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160; Leo XIII, encyclical "Libertas Praestantissimum," June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo Xlll 8 (1888), pp. 237-238.

680 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

Nor is the exercise of this right to be impeded, provided that the just requirements of public order are observed.7

3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective, and universal-whereby God orders, directs, and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth. Hence every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious, in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, with the use of all suitable means.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching

7. It was necessary for the Council to present an argument for the principle of religious freedom, lest anyone should mistakenly think that the Church was accepting religious freedom merely on pragmatic grounds or as a con- . cession to contemporary circumstances. However, it was not the intention of the Council to affirm that the argument, as made in the text, is final and decisive. Complete and systematic study of the arguments for religious freedom is a task left to the scholars of the Church, working in ecumenical spirit with scholars of other religious Communities, and in humanist spirit with scholars of no religious convictions who are concerned with the exigen­cies of human dignity. The Council merely presents certain lines or elements of argument. It will be sufficient here to indicate the structure.

First, in this paragraph, the objective foundation of the right to religious freedom is presented in terms that should be intelligible and acceptable to all men, including non-believers. The simple essence of the matter is that man, being intelligent and free, is to be a responsible agent. Inherent in his very nature, therefore, is an exigency for freedom from coercion, especially in matters religious. Therefore, in the following three paragraphs, an argument is suggested that will appeal to those who believe in God, in objective order of truth and morality, and in the obligation to seek the truth, form one's conscience, and obey its dictates. To the man who so believes, it will be evident that no one is to be forced or constrained to act against his own conscience (here conscience has its technical meaning).

Two further arguments are advanced to show that a man may not be restrained from acting according to his conscience. First, by reason of man's social nature, inner acts of religion require external expression; hence their external expression enjoys the same immunity from coercion as the inner acts themselves. Second, there is the "further consideration" that no right resides in government to command or inhibit acts of religion, which by their nature lie beyond the reach of government.

American theorists are generally disposed to relate religious freedom to a general theory of constitutional government, limited by the rights of man, and to the concept of civic equality. The Declaration, however, lays less stress on this political argument than it does on the ethical foundations of the right itself. In any event, the elements of the political argument are stated in later Articles (6 and 7). And one is free to construct the argument in the form which may seem more convincing.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 681

or instruction, communication, and dialogue. In the course of these, men explain to one another the truth they have dis­covered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth. Moreover, as the truth is discovered , it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the impera­tives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.

For, of its very nature, the exercise of religion consists before all else in those internal, voluntary, and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind .8

However, the social nature of man itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of reli­gion; that he should participate with others in matters reli­gious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury, therefore, is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society when the just requirements of public order do not so require.

There is a further consideration. The religious acts where­by men, in private and in public and out of a sense of per­sonal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Gov­ernment, therefore, ought indeed to take account of the reli­gious life of the people and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power were it to presume to direct or inhibit acts that are religious.

4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters reli­gious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in com-

8. CJ. John XXIJl, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 270; Paul VI, radio message, Dec. 22, 1964: AAS 57 (1965), pp. 181-182.

682 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

munity. Religious bodies are a requirement of the social na­ture both of man and of religion itself .9

Provided the just requirements of public order are ob­served, religious bodies rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erect­ing buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.

Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, ·whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices, every­one ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especial­ly when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's own right and a violation of the right of others.10

9. The freedoms listed here are those which the Catholic Church claims for herself. The Declaration likewise claims them for all Churches and religious Communities. Lest there be misunderstanding, however, it is necessary to recall here the distinction between the content or object of the right and its foundation. The content or object always remains freedom from coercion in what concerns religious belief, worship, practice or observance, and public testimony. Hence the content of the right is the same both for the Catholic Church and for other religious bodies. In this sense, the Church claims nothing for herself which she does not also claim for them. The matter is different, however, with regard to the foundation of the right. The Cathollc Church claims freedom from coercive interference in her ministry and life on grounds of the divine mandate laid upon her by Christ Himself (cf. below, note 13). It is Catholic faith that no other Church or Community may claim to possess this mandate in all its fullness . In this sense, the freedom of the Church is unique, proper to herself alone, by reason of its foundation. In the case of other religious Communities, the foundation of the right is the dignity of the human person, which requires that men be kept free from coercion, when they act in community, gathered into Churches, as well as when they act alone. 10. It is customary to distinguish between "Christian witness" and "prosely­tism" and to condemn the latter. This distinction is made in the text here. Proselytism is a corruption of Christian witness by appeal to hidden forms

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 683

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious free­dom that religious bodies should not be prohibited from free­ly undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.11 Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable, and social organizations, un­der the impulse of their own religious sense.

5. Since the family12 is a society in its own original right, it has the right freely to live its own domestic religious life un­der the guidance of parents. Parents, moreover, have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive.

Government, in consequence, must acknowledge the right of parents to make a genuinely free choice of schools and of other means of education. The use of this freedom of choice is not to be made a reason for imposing unjust burdens on parents, whether directly or indirectly. Besides, the rights of parents are violated if their children are forced to attend lessons or instruction which are not in agreement with their religious beliefs. The same is true if a single system of educa­tion, from which all religious formation is excluded, is im­posed upon all.

6. The common welfare of society consists in the entirety of those conditions of social life under which men enjoy the possibility of achieving their own perfection in a certain full­ness of measure and also with some relative ease. Hence this welfare consists chiefly in the protection of the rights,13 and

of coercion or by a style of ,propaganda unworthy of the gospel. It is not the use but the abuse of the right to religious freedom. 11. Implicitly rejected here is the outmoded notion that "religion is a purely private affair" or that "the Church belongs in the sacristy." Religion is relevant to the life and action of society. Therefore religious freedom includes the right to point out this social relevance of religious belief. 12. The internal structure of family relationships and the general style of family life vary widely throughout the world. Still greater variety is ex­hibited in the organization of school systems, in their relation to the family, to society, and to government, and in the religious and ideological content, or lack thereof, of their teaching. In consequence, the Declaration had to confine itself to a few principles of universal import, which would enforce its doctrinal line--freedom from coercion. To descend 'to further detail would be to enter the realm of policy, in which contingent circumstances play a determinant role. 13. CJ. John XXIII, encyclical "Mater et Magistra," May 15, 1961: AAS

684 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN JI

in the performance of the duties, of the human person. Therefore, the care of the right to religious freedom devolves upon the people as a whole, upon social groups, upon gov­ernment, and upon the Church and other religious Commu­nities, in virtue of the duty of all toward the common wel­fare, and in the manner proper to each.14

The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government.15

53 (1961), p. 417; idem, encyclical "Pacem in Terris,'' Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 273. 14. The development of Catholic doctrine which the Declaration promised has already shown itself in the clear definition of religious freedom as a human right and in the firm claim that all Churches and religious Com­munities are entitled to equal freedom from coercion in what concerns re­ligious belief, worship, -practice or observance, public testimony, and the internal autonomy of the community itself. Correlative with these develop­ments is the doctrine stated here with regard to the functions and limitations of government in what concerns religion in society. The pivotal notion is the concept of the common welfare which Leo XIII began to put forward in " Rerum Novarum," which Pius XII strongly developed, and which John XXIII defined with greater precision. The common welfare ''chiefly consists in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person," who is to be the agent of the processes of society and their beneficiary. The care of the common welfare is the common task of a,l . elements within society-individuals, groups, religious bodies, government- -each in the way proper to itself.

In a special way, the care of the common good-that is to say, the care of the rights of man-devolves upon government. Consequently, in what concerns religion in society, government has a duty that is twofold. The first duty is to acknowledge the human right to religious freedom, and effec­tively to protect it and vindicate it against violation. The second duty derives from the general duty of government to assist the people in the performance of their duties; in this case, it is to show a general and un­discriminating favor toward religion in society (cf. above, note 3, at the end) and to assist in the creation of condi:ions that will help, not hinder, the people in the exercise of their religious rights and in the performa~ce of their religious duties. This latter duty -is stated with considerable generality, because the appropriate means for its performance will vary within diverse circumstances.

The concern of the Council was, first, to make entirely clear the duty of government toward religious freedom as a human right, and secondly, to make sufficiently clear the function of government with regard to religion itself as a perfection of the human person and as a social value. This latter function is not easy to define with ,precision. It is chiefly a matter of avoid­ing extremes. On the one hand, government is forbidden to assume the care of religious truth as such, or jurisdiction over religious worship or practice, or the task of judging the truth or value of religious propaganda. Otherwise it would exceed its competence, which is confined to affairs of the temporal and terrestrial order. On the other hand, government is likewise forbidden to adopt toward religion an attitude of indifference or skepticism, much less hostility. Otherwise it would betray its duty to the human person, for whom religion is the highest good, and also to the temporal and terrestrial welfare of society, whose content is not merely material but also moral and spiritual. Here then is the principle for finding the golden mean between the extremes. 15. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris,'' Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 273-274; Pius XII, radio message, June 1, 1941: AAS 33 (1941), p. 200.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 685

Therefore, government is to assume the safeguard of the re­ligious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means. Government . is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will.16

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among cer­tain peoples, special legal recognition is given in the con­stitutional order of society to one religious body, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and reli­gious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.17

Finally, government is to see to it that the equality of citi­zens before the law, which is itself an element of the com­mon welfare, is never violated for religious reasons18

whether openly or covertly. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.

It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profes­sion or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious body. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations, when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a specific community.10

7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human so-

16. Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical "lmmortale Dei," Nov. 1, 1885: AAS 18 (1885), p. 161. 17. This paragraph is carefully phrased. The Council did not wish to condemn the institution of "establishment," the notion of a " religion of the state." A respectable opinion main tains that the institution is compatible with full religious freedom. On the other hand, the Council did not wish to canonize the institution. A respectable opinion holds that establishment is always a threat to religious freedom. Furthermore, the Council wished to insinuate that establishment, at least from the Catholic point of view, is a matter of historical circumstance, not of theological doctrine. For all these reasons the text deals with the issue in conditional terms. 18. This statement about equality before the law as an element of the common welfare has an accent of newness in official Catholic statements. It is im­portant for the construction of the full argument for religious freedom. 19. This condemnation of religious persecution is couched in temperate terms and without naming the guilty. However, the reference to totalitarian regimes of Communist inspiration is unmistakable.

686 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

ciety; hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. 20 In the use of all freedoms, the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fel­lows in justice and civility.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protec­tion. However, government is not to act in arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be con­trolled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order.

These norms arise out . of the need for effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for peaceful settlement of

20. It is a matter of common sense that the exercise of · all freedoms in society must be subject to certain regulatory norms. The Declaration states first the moral norm-the principle of personal and social responsibility. Its restraints, of course, are self-imposed. More difficult is the question of the juridical norm which should control the action of government in limiting or inhibiting the exercise of the right to religious freedom. (Note that the right itself is always inalienable, never to be denied; only the exercise of the right is subject to control in particular instances.) The norm cannot be the common welfare, since the common welfare requires that human rights should be protected, not limited, in their exercise. Hence the Declaration adopts the concept of public order. The concept has good warrant in constitutional law. However, it is more frequently used than defined. The Declaration under­takes to define it. In doing so, it makes a contribution to the science of law and jurisprudence.

First, the requirements of public order are not subject to arbitrary definition -at the hands, say, of tyrannical governments, which might abuse the concept for their own ends. The public order of society is a part of the universal moral order; its requirements must be rooted in moral law. Second, public order exhibits a threefold content. First, the order of society is essentially an order of justice, in which the rights of all citizens are effectively safe­guarded, and provision is made for peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights. Second, the order of society is a political order, an order of peace ("domestic tranquillity" is the American constitutional phrase). Public peace, however, is not the result of repressive action by the police. It is, in the classic con­cept, the work of justice; it comes about, of itself, when the demands of justice are met, and when orderly processes exist for airing and settling grievances. Third, the order of society is a moral order, at least in the sense that certain minimal standards of public morality are enforced at all.

Public order therefore is constituted by these three values-juridical, political, moral. They are the basic elements in the common welfare, which is a wider concept than public order. And so necessary are these three values that the coercive force of government may be enlisted to protect and vindicate them. Together they furnish a reasonable juridical criterion for coercive restriction of freedom. The free exercise of religion may not be inhibited unless proof is given that it entails some violation of the rights of others, or of the public peace, or of public morality. In these cases, in other words, a public action ceases to be a religious exercise and becomes a penal offense.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 687

conflicts of rights. They fl.ow from the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice. They come, finally, out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality. These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public or­der.

For the rest,21 the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range. These require that the free­dom of man be respected as far as possible, and curtailed only when and in so far as necessary.

8. Many pressures are brought to bear upon men of our day, to the point where the danger arises lest they lose the possibility of acting on their own judgment. On the other hand, not a few can be found who seem inclined to use the name of freedom as the pretext for refusing to submit to authority and for making light of the duty of obedience.

Therefore, this Vatican Synod urges everyone, especially those who are charged with the task of educating others, to do their utmost to form men who will respect the moral or­der and be obedient to lawful authority. Let them form men too who will be lovers of true freedom-men, in other words, who will come to decisions on their own judgment and in the light of truth, govern their activities with a sense of responsibility, and_ strive after what is true and right, will­ing always to join with others in cooperative effort.22

Religious frl;!edom, therefore, ought to have this further purpose and aim, namely, that men may come to act with

21. Secular experts may well consider this to be the most significant sentence in the Declaration. It is a statement of the basic principle of the "free society." The principle has important origins in the medieval tradition of kingship, law, and jurisprudence. But its statement by the Church has an accent of blessed newness-the newness of a renewal of the tradition. The renewal, already hesitantly begun by Pius XII, was strongly furthered by John XXIII. Catholic thought had consistently held that society is to be based upon truth (the truth of the human person), directed toward justice, and animated by charity. In "Pacem in Terris," John XXIII added the missing fourth term, freedom. Freedom is an end or purpose of society, which looks to the liberation of the human person. Freedom is the political method par ex­cellence, whereby the other goals of society are reached. Freedom, finally, is the prevailing social usage, which sets the style of society. This progress in doctrine is sanctioned and made secure by "Dignitatis Humanae Personae." 22. The Council calls attention to the paradox of the moment. Freedom today is threatened; freedom today is itself a threat. Hence the Council calls for education both in the uses of freedom and in the ways of obedience. When freedom is truly responsible, it implies a rightful response to legitimate authority.

688 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

greater responsibility in ·fulfilling their duties in community life.23

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE LIGHT OF REVELATION

CHAPTER II

,;

9. The declaration of this Vatican Synod on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation ii;i. the dignity of the person. The requirements of this dignity have come to be more adequately known to human reason through cen­turies of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.

Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the Word of God. It gives us lessons too in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to make their own and to follow in every situation.

Thus, further light is cast on the general principles upon which the doctrine of this Declaration on Religious Freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is en­tirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith. 24

23. Religious freedom is not an end in itself, but a means for the fulfillment of the higher purposes of man. Its religious purpose is clear. But here the Council notes its social purpose. Respect for religious freedom rises out of a consciousness of human dignity; but this consciousness itself confronts man with the responsibilities that his freedom entails. And these responsibilities pervade the whole of community life. · 24. The Declaration is the only conciliar document formally addressed to the whole world-Christian and non-Christian, religious and atheist. There­fore it first considers religious freedom in the light of reason. Moreover, in so doing it follows the structure of the problem itself, both theoretical and

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 689

10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free. Therefore no one is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith25 against his own will.2G This doctrine is contained in the Word · of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.27 The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Je­sus called to be God's adopted son,28 cannot give his ad­herence to God revealing Himself unless the Father draw

historical. Both as a principle and as a legal institution, religious freedom is less tha n two hundred years old. The First Amendment may claim the honor of ha ving first clearly formulated the principle and established the institution. Only through centuries of experience, as the Declaration says, have the exigencies of the human dignity disclosed themselves to reason. Nevertheless, the question remains, in what sense may religious freedom be called a "Christian" principle? The Council answers by saying that the principle has its "roots in divine revelation." These roots are explored in the second part of the Declaration. This section is of high ecumenical significance. It will furnish a major theme of ecumenical dialogue. 25. Cf. CIC, c. 1351; Pius XII, allocution to prelate auditors and other officials and administrators of the tribune of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 6, 1946: AAS 38 (1946), p. 394; idem, encyclical "Mystici Corporis," June 29, 1943: AAS (1943), p. 243. 26. The unwavering Christian dogma that the act of Christian faith must be a free response to the Word and grace of God reveals the divine respect for hm;nan freedom and for man's inalienable responsibility toward the direction of his own life. The constitutional principle of religious freedom is not a conclusion from this Christian dogma. The connection is rather more his­torical. That is to say, given the Christian doctrine of the freedom of faith, men would gradually come-as over the centuries they have come-to realize that man's religious life is an affair of responsible freedom, from which all coercion is to be excluded. Given this Christian appreciation of the value of freedom (and given also the growing secular experience of freedom as a social value and a political end), men could not fail to become increasingly conscious that religious freedom is an exigency of the dignity of the person, as this dignity is disclosed by the revelation that man is made in the image of God. Moreover, experience would also make it clear that, where religious freedom prevails, a climate of freedom is created in society which itself favors the free preaching of the gospel and the free living of the Christian life. 27. Cf. Lactantius "Divinarum Institutionum," Book V, 19: CSEL 19, pp. 463-464, 465: PL 6, 614 and 616 (ch. 20); St. Ambrose, "Epistola ad Valentianum Imp .," Letter 21: PL 16, 1005; St. Augustine, "Contra Litteras Petiliani," Book II, ch. 83: CSEL 52, p. 112: PL 43, 315; cf. C. 23, q. 5, c . 33 (ed. Friedberg, col. 939); idem, Letter 23: PL 33, 98; idem, Letter 34: PL 33, 132; idem, Letter 35: PL 33, 135; St. Gregory the Great, "Epistola ad Virgilium et Theodorum Episcopos Massiliae Galliarum," Register of Letters I, 45: MGH Ep. 1, p. 72; PL 77, 510-511 (Book I, ep. 47); idem, "Epistola ad lohannem Episcopum Constantinopolitanum," Register of Letters, Ill, 52: MGH Letter 1, p. 210: PL 77, 649 (Book III, Letter 53); cf. D. 45, c. 1 (ed. Friedberg, col. 160); Council of Toledo IV, c. 57: Mansi 10, 633; cf. D. 45, c. 5 (ed. Friedberg, col. 161-162); Clement Ill: X., V . 6, 9: ed. Friedberg, col. 774; Innocent Ill, "Epistola ad Arelatensem Archiepiscopum," X., III, 42, 3: ed. Friedberg, col. 646. 28. Cf. Eph . 1:5.

690 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

him29 to offer to God the reasonable and free submission of faith.

It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to Christian faith, and embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.

11 . God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no com­pulsion. 30 God has regard for the dignity of the human per­.son whom He Himself created; man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God perfectly manifested Himself and His way.s with men. Christ is our Master and our Lord.31 He is also meek and humble of heart.32 And in attracting and inviting His dis- . ciples He acted patiently.33 He wrought miracles to shed light on His teaching and to establish its truth. But His in­tention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.34

He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him; but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.35 When He sent His apostles into the world, He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be , con­demned" (Mk. 16:16); but He Himself, noting that cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should

29. Cf. Jn . 6:44. 30. The major purpose here is to show, from the example and teaching of Christ Himself, that coercion in matters religious is alien to the spirit of the gospel. The ways of God with men are not coercive. They are the ways of faithful love. And their supreme illustration is the cross. Rather than impose the truth upon men by force, Christ willingly accepted death at their h ands, and He made His death itself the means of redemption, as the revelation of a love than which there is no greater. The way of Christ became the way of His first apostles, whose reliance was on the power of the Word of God, never on earthly forces. 31. Cf. Jn. 13:13. 32. Cf. Mt. 11 :29. 33. Cf. Mt. 11 :28-30; Jn. 6:67-68. 34. Cf. Mt. 9:28-29; Mk. 9:23-24; 6, 5-6; Paul VI, encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam," Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964) , pp. 642-643. 35. Cf. Mt. 11:20-24; Rom. 12:19-20; 2 Th . 1:8.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 691

be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.30

He refused to be a political Messiah, ruling by force;37

He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came ''to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:45). He showed Himself the perfect Servant of God;38

"a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoking wick he will not quench" (Mt. 12:20).

He acknowledged the power of government and its rights, when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar. But He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate: "Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mt. 22:21).

In the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He also brought His revelation to completion. He bore witness to the truth,30 but He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it. Not by force of blows does His rule assert its claims.40 Rather, it is es­tablished by witnessing to the truth and by hearing the truth, and it extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws all men to Himself.41

Taught by the word and example of Christ, the apostles followed the same way. From the very origins of the Church the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ as the Lord-not, however, by the use of coercion or by devices unworthy of the gospel, but by the power, above all, of the Word of God.42 Steadfastly they proclaimed to all the plan of God our Savior, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). At the same time, however, they showed respect for weaker souls even though these persons were in error. Thus they made it plain that "every one of us will render an account of him­self to God" (Rom. 14:12),43 and for this reason is bound to obey his conscience.

Like Christ Himself, the apostles were unceasingly bent

36. Cf. Mt. 13:30 and 40-42. 37. Cf. Mt. 4:8-10; Jn. 6:15. 38. Cf. ls. 42:1-4. 39. Cf. Jn. 18:37. 40. Cf. Mt. 26:51-53; Jn. 18:36. 41. CJ. Jn. 12:32. 42. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:3-5; 1 Th. 2:3-5. 43. Cf. Rom. 14:1-23; I Cor. 8:9-13; 10:23-33.

692 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

upon bearing witness to the truth of God. They showed spe­cial courage in speaking "the word of God with boldness" ( Acts 4: 31) 44 before the people and their rulers. With a firm faith they held that the gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.4;:; Therefore they rejected all "carnal weapons."4 <1 They followed the example of the gentleness and respectfulness of Christ. And they preached the Word of God in the full confidence that there was resi­dent in this Word itself a divine power able to destroy all the forces arrayed against God-17 and to bring men to faith in Christ and to His service.4 8 As the Master, so too the apostles recognized legitimate civil authority. "For there exists no authority except from God," the Apostle teaches, and there­fore commands: * "Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities . . . : he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God" (Rom. 13: 1-2) .4o

At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set themselves in op­position to the holy will of God: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).:io This is the way along which countless martyrs and other believers have walked through all ages and over all the earth. r 12. The Church therefore is being faithful to the truth of the gospel, and is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes, and gives support to, the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages, the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there have at times appeared ways of acting which were less in accord with the spirit of the gospel and even opposed to it."1 Nevertheless, the doc-

44. Cf. Eph. 6:19-20. 45. Cf. Rom. 1: 16. 46. Cf. 2 Cor. 10:4; 1 Th. 5:8-9. 47. Cf. Eph . 6:JJ-17. 48 . Cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5. •The preceding 14 words are missing from the L 'Osservatore Romano text of Dec. 11, 1%5.-Ed. 49. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:13-17. 50. Cf. Acts 4:19-20. 51. The historical consciousness of the Council required that it be loyal to the truth of history. Hence the Declaration makes the humble avowal that the People of God have not always walked in the way of Christ and the

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 693

trine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.

Thus the leaven of the gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men. To it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that in religious matters the person in ·society is to be kept free from all manner of human coercion.

13. Among the things which concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore which are always and everywhere to be kept se­cure and defended against all injury-this certainly is pre­eminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires .52 This freedom is sacred, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. It is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and tl)e · whole civil order. ::;3

In human society and in the face of government, the

apostles. At times they have followed ways that were at variance with the spirit of the gospel and even contrary to it. The avowal is made briefly and without details. But the intention was to confess, in a penitent spirit, not only that Christian churchmen and princes have appealed to the coercive instruments of power in the supposed interests of the faith , but also that the Church herself has countenanced institutions which made a similar ap­peal. Whatever may be the nice historical judgment on these institutions in their own context of history, they are not to be justified, much less are they ever or in any way to be reinsta ted. The Declaration is a final renouncement and repudiation by the Church of all means and measures of coercion in matters religious. 52. Cf. Leo Xl/1, lei/er "Officio Sanctissimo," Dec. 22, 1887: AAS 20 (1887), p. 269; idem, letter "Ex Litteris," Apr. 7, 1887: AAS 19 (1886), p. 465. 53. This statement, together with the declaration of religious freedom as a human right and the enunciation of the principle of the free society, must rank as one of the central doctrinal utterances of the Declaration. Its im­portance is emphasized by the fact that Paul VI quoted it in his address on Dec. 9 to political rulers : "And what is it that this Church asks of you, after nearly two thousand years of all sorts of vicissitudes in her relations with you, the powers of earth? What does the Church ask of you today? In one of the major texts of the Council she has told you: she asks of you nothing but freedom-the freedom to believe and to preach her faith, the freedom to love God and to serve Hirn, the freedom to live and to bring to men her message of life." This doctrine is traditional; it is also new. Implicit in it is the renunciation by the Church of a condition of legal privilege in society. The Church does not make, as a matter of right or of divine law, the claim that she should be established as the "religion of the state." Her claim is freedom, nothing more.

694 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

Church claims freedom for herself in her character as a spiritual authority, established by Christ the Lord. Upon this authority there rests, by divine mandate, the duty of going -out into the whole world and preaching the gospel to every creature.54 The Church also claims freedom for herself in her character as a society of men who have the right to live in soci­ety in accordance with the precepts of Christian faith. 55

In turn, where the principle of religious freedom is not only proclaimed in words or simply incorporated in law but also given sincere and practical application, there the Church succeeds in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of fact and the independence which is necessary for the fulfill­ment of her divine mission. This independence is precisely what the authorities of the Church claim in society.56

At the same time, the Christian faithful, in common with all other men, possess the civil right not to be hindered in leading their lives in accordance with their conscience. There­fore , a harmony exists between the freedom of. the Church and the religious freedom which is to be recognized as the right of all men and communities and sanctioned by con­stitutional law.

14. In order to be faithful to the divine command, "Make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28: 19), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the Word of God* may run and be glorified" - (2 Th. 3: 1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of her children that, first of all, "sup­plications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men. . . . For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faith­ful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doc­trine of the Church.57, 58 The Church is, by the will of

54. Cf. Mk. 16:15; Mt. 28:18-20; Pius XII, encyclical "Summi Pontificatus," Oct. 20, 1939: AAS 31 (1939), pp. 445-446. 55. Cf. Pius Xl, letter "Firmissimam Constantiam," Mar. 28, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), p. 196. 56. Cf. Pius XII, alloculion "Ci Riesce,'' Dec. 6, 1953: AAS 45 (1953), p. 802. *The CCD translation has "the Lord" instead of "God."-Ed. 57. Cf. Pius XII, radio message, Mar. 23, 1952: AAS 44 (1952), pp. 270-278. 58. The Council directs a word of pastoral exhortation to the Christian faithful. They are urged, in -particular, to form their consciences under the ~idance of the authority of the Church. It might be noted here that the Council intended to make a clear distinction between religious freedom as a principle in the civil order and the Christian freedom which obtains even

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 695

Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utter­ance to, and authoritatively to teach, that Truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her au­thority those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7). Let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence59 and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ his Master ever more adequately to understand the truth re­ceived from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to act lovingly, prudently and patiently in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. 60 All is to be taken into account-the Christian duty to Chri6t, the life­giving Word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men, who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.

15. The fact is that men of the present day want to be able freely to profess their religion in private and in public. Re­ligious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in inter­national documents. 61 The further fact is that forms of govern­ment still exist under which, even though freedom of religious worship receives constitutional recognition, the powers of government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of religion and to make life difficult and dangerous for religious Cornmunities.62

inside the Church. These two freedoms are distinct in kind; and it would be perilous to confuse them. Nowhere does the Declaration touch the issue of freedom within the Church. Undoubtedly, however, it will be a stimulus for the articulation of a full theology of Christian freedom in its relation to the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the Church. 59. Cf. Acts 4:29. 60. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 299-300. 61. Cf. John XXIII, encyclical "Pacem in Terris," Apr. 11 , 1963: AAS 55 (1963) , pp. 295-296. 62. At the end, the Council turns once more to the world at large. Two facts claim its attention. First, the principle of religious freedom is widely recognized; this fact takes its place among the signs of the times. Second,

696 THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

This sacred Synod greets with joy the first of these two facts, as among the signs of the times. With sorrow, how­ever, it denounces the other fact, as only to be deplored. The Synod exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family.

All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of dif­ferent cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that weighs upon every man. All this is evident.

Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and har­mony may be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be every­where provided with an effective constitutional guarantee, and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society . .

May the God and Father of all grant that the human fam­ily, through careful observance of the principle of religious freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unend­ing "freedom of the glory of the sons of God" (Rom. 8: 21).

Each and every one of the things set forth in this Declara­tion has won the consent of the Fathers of this most sacred Council. We too, by the apostolic authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the Venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God's glory.

Rome, at St. Peter's, December 7, 1965

I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church

There follow the signatures of the Fathers.

the principle of religious freedom is also widely violated; this fact can only be deplored. Then the Declaration, which has stated its argument in terms of principle, turns to the pragmatic aspect of the issue--the practical value and necessity of religious freedom in the world today. It is a world of diversity which is striving toward some measure of unity; it is a world of conflict which is yearning for peace; it is, above all, a world in which a new consciousness of human dignity struggles to find expression in social in­stitutions that will guarantee to men the freedom which is due to them in justice. Most nec~ssary of all is freedom of religion. Where it is safe, the way is open for the "glorious freedom of the sons of God" to come to men as God's ,gift through Christ in the Holy Spirit.